Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jane Doe, who has moved to proceed under a pseudonym, sued Tommy Morris Dean and Does 1–25 in the Southern District of California. Two motions were before the court: Plaintiff's ex parte motion to proceed under a pseudonym (ECF No. 4) and her motion for an order permitting alternative service (ECF No. 6). The service motion asked to serve the complaint on Dean by email, together with concurrent mail service to his residence.
According to Plaintiff's account, which the court recited and accepted for purposes of the motion, a registered California process server made at least seven attempts between August 28 and September 10, 2026, at varying times. On five occasions the server could not reach the door because the home sits behind an unstaffed private gate, and calls to the call box and intercom went unanswered or were answered by an unidentified person who did not permit entry. On two others, September 4 and September 10, a person identifying herself as a resident confirmed that Dean lives there but said he was unavailable, and on September 10 she expressly declined to accept the papers for him.
Plaintiff further stated that Dean uses an email address that he has used to communicate with her counsel's office, including in direct response to notice of proceedings in this case, and that no undeliverable-message notice or other sign of invalidity has ever been received. Dean had not been served and had not appeared; his deadline to respond to the pseudonym motion was October 13, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the service motion. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), which permits service by any method allowed under the law of the forum state, it looked to California Code of Civil Procedure section 413.30. That statute lets a court direct service in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice, including by email, and the court noted that the statute does not require exhausting California's other enumerated methods. It added that a plaintiff must first show reasonable diligence, and that the method must also satisfy due process under Rio Properties and Mullane.
On diligence, the court found the efforts described, seven unsuccessful attempts at the residence including calls to the intercom and contact with other occupants, satisfied the standard, citing Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, which says two or three attempts at a proper place should fully satisfy reasonable diligence. On notice, it found email service reasonably calculated to reach Dean because he had used the address to communicate with counsel in this case and no undeliverable notice had been received, so email service comported with due process.
The operative directives are narrow. Plaintiff must serve Dean by email within seven days of the order. The court extended nunc pro tunc the October 13, 2026 deadline for Dean to respond to the pseudonym motion, and ordered that his response to the complaint and any opposition to that motion be filed within 21 days of service. It warned, quoting its standing order, that failure to oppose a motion timely may be construed as consent to granting it. The order's conclusion does not separately direct mail service. It did not decide the pseudonym motion.
Key Takeaways
- Seven documented attempts at varying times, met by a private gate, unanswered intercom calls, and a resident's refusal to accept papers, established reasonable diligence for alternative service.
- Section 413.30 allows court-ordered email service without first exhausting California's other statutory methods, but the plaintiff must still show diligence and a method reasonably calculated to give actual notice.
- Evidence that the defendant has used the email address to communicate with counsel in the case, with no undeliverable notices, supported a due process finding.
- The order is interlocutory and does not decide the pending pseudonym motion, which remains open until the defendant is served and has a chance to oppose.
- A defendant served by email has 21 days from service to respond to the complaint and oppose the pseudonym request, and silence may be treated as consent to that motion.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order on a routine service motion and carries no precedential weight. It illustrates how a Southern District of California judge applies Rule 4(e)(1) and section 413.30 to a defendant behind a gated residence, tying email service to evidence of prior email contact with counsel.
The nunc pro tunc extension protected an unserved defendant on the pseudonym motion. Because the court relied on Plaintiff's account without a contested hearing, it did not decide whether Dean was evading service, and later challenges to service or anonymity remain open.